***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (2 Viewers)

[5 digit know nothing]

Do most of us agree the real way to limit the shooting sprees is to localize the news coverage since the glorification caused by the MSM just proliferates copy cat shooting sprees?Prior to Aurora how many incidents were there of movie theater shooting sprees? How many people have been stopped from doing the same exact thing since Aurora?Yes other things can be done but they require massive change for a negligible impact.

If you are a supporter of the 2nd amendment and don't want to give the government too much control, you should hate this proposal as well.

which proposal? I am proposing to limit news coverage when these bad things happen so the guy does not go out in a blaze of glory aka rock star.

 

[TobiasFunke]

If they're homicidal, suicidal, or display threatening behavior, the mental health professional is already supposed to report that for inclusion in the background check database in some states.

And people wonder why many avoid seeking mental help... Here's one of the reasons.

If we have people who are avoiding seeking mental help because they don't want it to potentially interfere with their precious right to own a gun, the problem isn't with the regulations. It's with a society that encourages people to prioritize gun ownership over mental health.

 

[Bird]

Aren't guns already taxed? Are people here arguing that's unconstitutional?

That seemed to be what Bird was arguing- that you can't or at least shouldn't tax guns because of their "protected" status in the 2nd Amendment.

That is not what I meant. If you want to own a gun then there will be a sales tax on that purchase. If I want to circulate a newsletter professing my views then there are production costs to me. If I want to protest the Government then there may be a cost of being arrested. Those are consequences for the Right I choose to exercise but there shouldn't be an added tax just to invoke that Right. Using BnB's analogy about being gifted a gun, if I correctly follow the procedures for the transfer then why should I pay a yearly tax or insurance for the Right to keep it in my closet?

 

[Mello]

If they're homicidal, suicidal, or display threatening behavior, the mental health professional is already supposed to report that for inclusion in the background check database in some states.

And people wonder why many avoid seeking mental help... Here's one of the reasons.

If we have people who are avoiding seeking mental help because they don't want it to potentially interfere with their precious right to own a gun, the problem isn't with the regulations. It's with a society that encourages people to prioritize gun ownership over mental health.

Today it's more about problems with getting a job and yes a job that allows one to live is > mental health.

 

[moleculo]

Aren't guns already taxed? Are people here arguing that's unconstitutional?

That seemed to be what Bird was arguing- that you can't or at least shouldn't tax guns because of their "protected" status in the 2nd Amendment.

That is not what I meant. If you want to own a gun then there will be a sales tax on that purchase. If I want to circulate a newsletter professing my views then there are production costs to me. If I want to protest the Government then there may be a cost of being arrested. Those are consequences for the Right I choose to exercise but there shouldn't be an added tax just to invoke that Right. Using BnB's analogy about being gifted a gun, if I correctly follow the procedures for the transfer then why should I pay a yearly tax or insurance for the Right to keep it in my closet?

if the gun can be fired, it has a potential cost to society that could be quantified by qualified actuaries.

 

[rascal]

Just talked to my local NRA guy in my office. It wasn't a friendly discussion.Points he brought up1) Assault Rifles are already banned and have been for decades.2) The mass murders we have seen, and the rate has not increased just the publicity, have occurred in gun free zones.3) If somebody has decided to do this, investigations have shown that the planning for these was done months in advance, requiring a back ground check isn't going to do anything. 4) Did agree that a buyer, regardless of it being a private sale, should have a background check and require proof to seller.

1) Wrong on the federal level, correct on some state and/or local levels2) Some have been in gun free zones, but I'd imagine that his response would have been different last week, just after the mall shootings, or several months ago, after the movie theater shootings.3) I'm not sure what the basis is for this statement, but there are plenty of examples where police have no reason to believe that something was planned months in advance.4) Sounds like a good idea.

playing his role:1) since 1934.2) which ones?3) just proof that a background check won't stop somebody from getting a gun. He said, "if I wanted an uzi I know exactly where in this town to get it and can get it for substantially less than purchasing it legally"

 

[TobiasFunke]

Aren't guns already taxed? Are people here arguing that's unconstitutional?

That seemed to be what Bird was arguing- that you can't or at least shouldn't tax guns because of their "protected" status in the 2nd Amendment.

That is not what I meant. If you want to own a gun then there will be a sales tax on that purchase. If I want to circulate a newsletter professing my views then there are production costs to me. If I want to protest the Government then there may be a cost of being arrested. Those are consequences for the Right I choose to exercise but there shouldn't be an added tax just to invoke that Right. Using BnB's analogy about being gifted a gun, if I correctly follow the procedures for the transfer then why should I pay a yearly tax or insurance for the Right to keep it in my closet?

I don't understand the difference between choosing to exercise a right and invoking a right.If you're gifted a gun you should pay a yearly tax for accepting the gift if that's something the public wants to tax, just like you'd have to pay a tax or regular fee for accepting a gift of a car or a home or ownership or many, many other things.

 

[TobiasFunke]

If they're homicidal, suicidal, or display threatening behavior, the mental health professional is already supposed to report that for inclusion in the background check database in some states.

And people wonder why many avoid seeking mental help... Here's one of the reasons.

If we have people who are avoiding seeking mental help because they don't want it to potentially interfere with their precious right to own a gun, the problem isn't with the regulations. It's with a society that encourages people to prioritize gun ownership over mental health.

Today it's more about problems with getting a job and yes a job that allows one to live is > mental health.

So argue in favor of keeping that data private when it comes to employment inquiries. Don't argue in favor of keeping it private when it comes to weapons background checks.

 

[parasaurolophus]

That's a nice theory but I doubt it would work in practice because driving is a privilege and gun ownership is a Right granted to members of the Republic and I don't think the Government should tax a Right. Would you want to be on trial and not be able to invoke your right not to incriminate yourself because you didn't pay your 5th Amendment Tax or because your 5th Amendment Insurance has lapsed?

We tax the exercise of many rights (or Rights).

So you are ok with a poll tax?

Poll taxes are specifically prohibited in the Constitution. Before passage of the 24th Amendment, they were constitutional. The vast majority of people and politicians rejected them because they think it's a good thing to have as many people vote as possible, so they were abolished through the Amendment process.Gun taxes are not specifically prohibited in the Constitution. Therefore they are constitutional. if you'd like to try to convince the vast majority of people that it's a good thing to have as many people own as many guns as possible, feel free to start the movement for an Amendment. Good luck with that.

Not trying to convince anybody of anything. Pointing out some cross thread hypocrisy. How about I rephrase.Are you ok with a freedom of speech registration fee?

 

[rascal]

That's a nice theory but I doubt it would work in practice because driving is a privilege and gun ownership is a Right granted to members of the Republic and I don't think the Government should tax a Right. Would you want to be on trial and not be able to invoke your right not to incriminate yourself because you didn't pay your 5th Amendment Tax or because your 5th Amendment Insurance has lapsed?

We tax the exercise of many rights (or Rights).

So you are ok with a poll tax?

Poll taxes are specifically prohibited in the Constitution. Before passage of the 24th Amendment, they were constitutional. The vast majority of people and politicians rejected them because they think it's a good thing to have as many people vote as possible, so they were abolished through the Amendment process.Gun taxes are not specifically prohibited in the Constitution. Therefore they are constitutional. if you'd like to try to convince the vast majority of people that it's a good thing to have as many people own as many guns as possible, feel free to start the movement for an Amendment. Good luck with that.

Not trying to convince anybody of anything. Pointing out some cross thread hypocrisy. How about I rephrase.Are you ok with a freedom of speech registration fee?

You are being a ####### idiot.Firearms are already taxed.You are equating speaking to buying a gun. Unbelievable.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Are you ok with a freedom of speech registration fee?

How would this work?

 

[timschochet]

Just talked to my local NRA guy in my office. It wasn't a friendly discussion.Points he brought up1) Assault Rifles are already banned and have been for decades.2) The mass murders we have seen, and the rate has not increased just the publicity, have occurred in gun free zones.3) If somebody has decided to do this, investigations have shown that the planning for these was done months in advance, requiring a back ground check isn't going to do anything. 4) Did agree that a buyer, regardless of it being a private sale, should have a background check and require proof to seller.

If Sandy Hook changed anything, it's on point # 4. Big difference in people's attitudes toward this since last week.

 

[TobiasFunke]

That's a nice theory but I doubt it would work in practice because driving is a privilege and gun ownership is a Right granted to members of the Republic and I don't think the Government should tax a Right. Would you want to be on trial and not be able to invoke your right not to incriminate yourself because you didn't pay your 5th Amendment Tax or because your 5th Amendment Insurance has lapsed?

We tax the exercise of many rights (or Rights).

So you are ok with a poll tax?

Poll taxes are specifically prohibited in the Constitution. Before passage of the 24th Amendment, they were constitutional. The vast majority of people and politicians rejected them because they think it's a good thing to have as many people vote as possible, so they were abolished through the Amendment process.Gun taxes are not specifically prohibited in the Constitution. Therefore they are constitutional. if you'd like to try to convince the vast majority of people that it's a good thing to have as many people own as many guns as possible, feel free to start the movement for an Amendment. Good luck with that.

Not trying to convince anybody of anything. Pointing out some cross thread hypocrisy. How about I rephrase.Are you ok with a freedom of speech registration fee?

I have no idea what that means. If you can give me a more concrete example of what you'd impose a fee on, I can tell you how I'd feel about it.

 

[moleculo]

...Are you ok with a freedom of speech registration fee?

what would be the compelling reason?

 

[Mad Cow]

My favorite part of this thread is all the rational and logical anti-gun posters like Otis throwing around insults, treating others in very demeaning ways, ignoring facts and refusing to accept anything other than everything they think will help, and then repeatedly calling anyone that disagrees with them ignorant, unwilling to compromise and any number of other great things. That's the best.

 

[ATC1]

Just talked to my local NRA guy in my office. It wasn't a friendly discussion.Points he brought up1) Assault Rifles are already banned and have been for decades.2) The mass murders we have seen, and the rate has not increased just the publicity, have occurred in gun free zones.3) If somebody has decided to do this, investigations have shown that the planning for these was done months in advance, requiring a back ground check isn't going to do anything. 4) Did agree that a buyer, regardless of it being a private sale, should have a background check and require proof to seller.

1) Wrong on the federal level, correct on some state and/or local levels2) Some have been in gun free zones, but I'd imagine that his response would have been different last week, just after the mall shootings, or several months ago, after the movie theater shootings.3) I'm not sure what the basis is for this statement, but there are plenty of examples where police have no reason to believe that something was planned months in advance.4) Sounds like a good idea.

2. I'll repeat. There were a number of movie theaters between the Aurora shooter's house and the one he chose. The difference is this theater had the gun free zone on the front door. Oregon shooter has a report that a citizen with a CCP pulled his gun and that is when the shooter shot himself before any police arrived.

 

[Henry Ford]

Just talked to my local NRA guy in my office. It wasn't a friendly discussion.

Points he brought up

1) Assault Rifles are already banned and have been for decades.

2) The mass murders we have seen, and the rate has not increased just the publicity, have occurred in gun free zones.

3) If somebody has decided to do this, investigations have shown that the planning for these was done months in advance, requiring a back ground check isn't going to do anything.

4) Did agree that a buyer, regardless of it being a private sale, should have a background check and require proof to seller.

1) Wrong on the federal level, correct on some state and/or local levels2) Some have been in gun free zones, but I'd imagine that his response would have been different last week, just after the mall shootings, or several months ago, after the movie theater shootings.

3) I'm not sure what the basis is for this statement, but there are plenty of examples where police have no reason to believe that something was planned months in advance.

4) Sounds like a good idea.

playing his role:1) since 1934.

2) which ones?

3) just proof that a background check won't stop somebody from getting a gun. He said, "if I wanted an uzi I know exactly where in this town to get it and can get it for substantially less than purchasing it legally"

1) What he's calling assault rifles isn't the same thing as what the general public calls assault weapons, it's a technical distinction that he's almost right about. They're not banned, they're extremely tightly regulated to the point that it's nearly a ban. But if he wants to speak technically, he should get the legal stuff right, not just the gun definition stuff. He's talking about automatic and burst-fire rifles, which are under very, very strict control. "Assault weapons" - which include rifle-length guns in many instances, are semi-auto weapons with certain characteristics defined by statute. Okay, if he wants to change the discussion, he can. 2) http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map Look at the map. All the ones that aren't in gun free zones. Like IHOP. Or cafes. Or workplaces.

3) Okay. Then he should say that instead of something not true, like that all of these are planned months in advance.

 

[Mello]

If they're homicidal, suicidal, or display threatening behavior, the mental health professional is already supposed to report that for inclusion in the background check database in some states.

And people wonder why many avoid seeking mental help... Here's one of the reasons.

If we have people who are avoiding seeking mental help because they don't want it to potentially interfere with their precious right to own a gun, the problem isn't with the regulations. It's with a society that encourages people to prioritize gun ownership over mental health.

Today it's more about problems with getting a job and yes a job that allows one to live is > mental health.

So argue in favor of keeping that data private when it comes to employment inquiries. Don't argue in favor of keeping it private when it comes to weapons background checks.

No reason I can't do both.

 

[BassNBrew]

Aren't guns already taxed? Are people here arguing that's unconstitutional?

That seemed to be what Bird was arguing- that you can't or at least shouldn't tax guns because of their "protected" status in the 2nd Amendment.

That is not what I meant. If you want to own a gun then there will be a sales tax on that purchase. If I want to circulate a newsletter professing my views then there are production costs to me. If I want to protest the Government then there may be a cost of being arrested. Those are consequences for the Right I choose to exercise but there shouldn't be an added tax just to invoke that Right. Using BnB's analogy about being gifted a gun, if I correctly follow the procedures for the transfer then why should I pay a yearly tax or insurance for the Right to keep it in my closet?

if the gun can be fired, it has a potential cost to society that could be quantified by qualified actuaries.

OK...I'm on board if the gov't sets up insurance exchanges, rates are based on income, I can pay a yearly fine and opt out, and I can purchase insurance at any time with no pre-existing conditions. I also expect everyone to be included in the program including non-gun owners since non-gun owners still have the right to own a gun.

 

[timschochet]

My favorite part of this thread is all the rational and logical anti-gun posters like Otis throwing around insults, treating others in very demeaning ways, ignoring facts and refusing to accept anything other than everything they think will help, and then repeatedly calling anyone that disagrees with them ignorant, unwilling to compromise and any number of other great things. That's the best.

As compared to the rational, logical, and willing to compromise pro-gun people?

 

[Mad Cow]

My favorite part of this thread is all the rational and logical anti-gun posters like Otis throwing around insults, treating others in very demeaning ways, ignoring facts and refusing to accept anything other than everything they think will help, and then repeatedly calling anyone that disagrees with them ignorant, unwilling to compromise and any number of other great things. That's the best.

As compared to the rational, logical, and willing to compromise pro-gun people?

The treatment of the Otis's is far worse than anything back the other way, though I hardly think they would recognize it, since there are witches to burn and stuff.

 

[Henry Ford]

Just talked to my local NRA guy in my office. It wasn't a friendly discussion.Points he brought up1) Assault Rifles are already banned and have been for decades.2) The mass murders we have seen, and the rate has not increased just the publicity, have occurred in gun free zones.3) If somebody has decided to do this, investigations have shown that the planning for these was done months in advance, requiring a back ground check isn't going to do anything. 4) Did agree that a buyer, regardless of it being a private sale, should have a background check and require proof to seller.

1) Wrong on the federal level, correct on some state and/or local levels2) Some have been in gun free zones, but I'd imagine that his response would have been different last week, just after the mall shootings, or several months ago, after the movie theater shootings.3) I'm not sure what the basis is for this statement, but there are plenty of examples where police have no reason to believe that something was planned months in advance.4) Sounds like a good idea.

2. I'll repeat. There were a number of movie theaters between the Aurora shooter's house and the one he chose. The difference is this theater had the gun free zone on the front door. Oregon shooter has a report that a citizen with a CCP pulled his gun and that is when the shooter shot himself before any police arrived.

No, we're not sure of the difference yet, but there's a decent chance that the difference is that he went to elementary school at the place that he chose, and since he was home-schooled and we're not sure when yet, that may have been the last school he attended. Presumably he was not pulled out of movie theater and home movie theatered by his mother, whom he killed first.And what does your statement have to do with "these things don't happen except in gun free zones"?

 

[moleculo]

Aren't guns already taxed? Are people here arguing that's unconstitutional?

That seemed to be what Bird was arguing- that you can't or at least shouldn't tax guns because of their "protected" status in the 2nd Amendment.

That is not what I meant. If you want to own a gun then there will be a sales tax on that purchase. If I want to circulate a newsletter professing my views then there are production costs to me. If I want to protest the Government then there may be a cost of being arrested. Those are consequences for the Right I choose to exercise but there shouldn't be an added tax just to invoke that Right. Using BnB's analogy about being gifted a gun, if I correctly follow the procedures for the transfer then why should I pay a yearly tax or insurance for the Right to keep it in my closet?

if the gun can be fired, it has a potential cost to society that could be quantified by qualified actuaries.

OK...I'm on board if the gov't sets up insurance exchanges, rates are based on income, I can pay a yearly fine and opt out, and I can purchase insurance at any time with no pre-existing conditions. I also expect everyone to be included in the program including non-gun owners since non-gun owners still have the right to own a gun.

lol

 

[TobiasFunke]

If they're homicidal, suicidal, or display threatening behavior, the mental health professional is already supposed to report that for inclusion in the background check database in some states.

And people wonder why many avoid seeking mental help... Here's one of the reasons.

If we have people who are avoiding seeking mental help because they don't want it to potentially interfere with their precious right to own a gun, the problem isn't with the regulations. It's with a society that encourages people to prioritize gun ownership over mental health.

Today it's more about problems with getting a job and yes a job that allows one to live is > mental health.

So argue in favor of keeping that data private when it comes to employment inquiries. Don't argue in favor of keeping it private when it comes to weapons background checks.

No reason I can't do both.

True. But that's beside the point. You said people avoid seeking mental help because they don't want to give up the guns. I said that if this is true, we have much bigger problems than regulation. We have a society that somehow encourages some of its citizens to value gun ownership over mental health. If that's the case maybe the people that glorify gun ownership should shoulder some of the blame. Do you disagree?

 

[Novice2]

Are you ok with a freedom of speech registration fee?

How would this work?

You want a blog? Register your site. You want to run a newspaper? Sure no problem just fill out this form and pay this fee. Speech is dangerous. Just look at Benghazi.

 

[ATC1]

2) http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map Look at the map. All the ones that aren't in gun free zones. Like IHOP. Or cafes. Or workplaces.

Looked at it again. Some observations.Requirements of at least 4 deaths. Could it be that in cases where there are less deaths a person armed or a citizin took it upon themselves to act?

Most appear to be in California (State law limit of 10 round magazines)

Other places including the businesses, movie theaters, malls may be gun free zones if the is according to state law or private property where owners want no one to carry (businesses).

Seems to me that the one common groun in most shootings was they had reports of some mental disability.

 

[rascal]

Seems to me that the one common groun in most shootings was they had reports of some mental disability.

By my count, 100% of the shootings also involved guns.It shouldn't be, "we have a mental health issue or we have a gun control issue." It's very possible, and almost certain, that we have both.

100% of car fatalities involve a car. 100% of drunk-driving deaths involve alchohol.You going to ban cars and alcohol?

 

[ATC1]

Just talked to my local NRA guy in my office. It wasn't a friendly discussion.Points he brought up1) Assault Rifles are already banned and have been for decades.2) The mass murders we have seen, and the rate has not increased just the publicity, have occurred in gun free zones.3) If somebody has decided to do this, investigations have shown that the planning for these was done months in advance, requiring a back ground check isn't going to do anything. 4) Did agree that a buyer, regardless of it being a private sale, should have a background check and require proof to seller.

1) Wrong on the federal level, correct on some state and/or local levels2) Some have been in gun free zones, but I'd imagine that his response would have been different last week, just after the mall shootings, or several months ago, after the movie theater shootings.3) I'm not sure what the basis is for this statement, but there are plenty of examples where police have no reason to believe that something was planned months in advance.4) Sounds like a good idea.

2. I'll repeat. There were a number of movie theaters between the Aurora shooter's house and the one he chose. The difference is this theater had the gun free zone on the front door. Oregon shooter has a report that a citizen with a CCP pulled his gun and that is when the shooter shot himself before any police arrived.

No, we're not sure of the difference yet, but there's a decent chance that the difference is that he went to elementary school at the place that he chose, and since he was home-schooled and we're not sure when yet, that may have been the last school he attended. Presumably he was not pulled out of movie theater and home movie theatered by his mother, whom he killed first.And what does your statement have to do with "these things don't happen except in gun free zones"?

You talking about the CT shooting? 2nd statement. Most mass shootings do occur in gun free zones.

 

[ATC1]

Seems to me that the one common groun in most shootings was they had reports of some mental disability.

By my count, 100% of the shootings also involved guns.It shouldn't be, "we have a mental health issue or we have a gun control issue." It's very possible, and almost certain, that we have both.

100% of car fatalities involve a car. 100% of drunk-driving deaths involve alchohol.You going to ban cars and alcohol?

This argument is pointless. I 100% agree we have a problem with both. No possible way to address both?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Are you ok with a freedom of speech registration fee?

How would this work?

You want a blog? Register your site. You want to run a newspaper? Sure no problem just fill out this form and pay this fee. Speech is dangerous. Just look at Benghazi.

I think these things normally already have associated fees. Domain registrations, fees for incorporating, etc.

 

[rascal]

Just talked to my local NRA guy in my office. It wasn't a friendly discussion.

Points he brought up

1) Assault Rifles are already banned and have been for decades.

2) The mass murders we have seen, and the rate has not increased just the publicity, have occurred in gun free zones.

3) If somebody has decided to do this, investigations have shown that the planning for these was done months in advance, requiring a back ground check isn't going to do anything.

4) Did agree that a buyer, regardless of it being a private sale, should have a background check and require proof to seller.

1) Wrong on the federal level, correct on some state and/or local levels2) Some have been in gun free zones, but I'd imagine that his response would have been different last week, just after the mall shootings, or several months ago, after the movie theater shootings.

3) I'm not sure what the basis is for this statement, but there are plenty of examples where police have no reason to believe that something was planned months in advance.

4) Sounds like a good idea.

playing his role:1) since 1934.

2) which ones?

3) just proof that a background check won't stop somebody from getting a gun. He said, "if I wanted an uzi I know exactly where in this town to get it and can get it for substantially less than purchasing it legally"

1) What he's calling assault rifles isn't the same thing as what the general public calls assault weapons, it's a technical distinction that he's almost right about. They're not banned, they're extremely tightly regulated to the point that it's nearly a ban. But if he wants to speak technically, he should get the legal stuff right, not just the gun definition stuff. He's talking about automatic and burst-fire rifles, which are under very, very strict control. "Assault weapons" - which include rifle-length guns in many instances, are semi-auto weapons with certain characteristics defined by statute. Okay, if he wants to change the discussion, he can. 2) http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map Look at the map. All the ones that aren't in gun free zones. Like IHOP. Or cafes. Or workplaces.

3) Okay. Then he should say that instead of something not true, like that all of these are planned months in advance.

1) The correct terms need to be used.2) Nothing on that map incicates that those locations were gun free or not.

3) I agree.

 

[Novice2]

Are you ok with a freedom of speech registration fee?

How would this work?

You want a blog? Register your site. You want to run a newspaper? Sure no problem just fill out this form and pay this fee. Speech is dangerous. Just look at Benghazi.

I think these things normally already have associated fees. Domain registrations, fees for incorporating, etc.

So do guns but more regulation never hurt anyone. Nor more monies into the government coffers collecting these new fees either.

 

[Mello]

If they're homicidal, suicidal, or display threatening behavior, the mental health professional is already supposed to report that for inclusion in the background check database in some states.

And people wonder why many avoid seeking mental help... Here's one of the reasons.

If we have people who are avoiding seeking mental help because they don't want it to potentially interfere with their precious right to own a gun, the problem isn't with the regulations. It's with a society that encourages people to prioritize gun ownership over mental health.

Today it's more about problems with getting a job and yes a job that allows one to live is > mental health.

So argue in favor of keeping that data private when it comes to employment inquiries. Don't argue in favor of keeping it private when it comes to weapons background checks.

No reason I can't do both.

True. But that's beside the point. You said people avoid seeking mental help because they don't want to give up the guns. I said that if this is true, we have much bigger problems than regulation. We have a society that somehow encourages some of its citizens to value gun ownership over mental health. If that's the case maybe the people that glorify gun ownership should shoulder some of the blame. Do you disagree?

I don't agree. I believe the freedom of an individual to do what they choose as long as it does not directly harm others is the most important thing we have (had). I don't think it's very strange at all that if someone agrees with that, that they would be less willing to seek mental help when they know that's it's possible that information will be shared with the government to limit their freedom to own a gun or whatever else the government or anyone else with access chooses to use that information for. This is why this type of information should only be between the individual and the doctor and absolutely no one else without the individual's consent. Anything else provides outside motivation against seeking help.

 

[squistion]

Do Armed Civilians Stop Mass Shooters? Actually, No.

Five cases commonly cited as a rationale for arming Americans don't stand up to scrutiny.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings

 

[Henry Ford]

2) http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map Look at the map. All the ones that aren't in gun free zones. Like IHOP. Or cafes. Or workplaces.

Looked at it again. Some observations.Requirements of at least 4 deaths. Could it be that in cases where there are less deaths a person armed or a citizin took it upon themselves to act?

Most appear to be in California (State law limit of 10 round magazines)

Other places including the businesses, movie theaters, malls may be gun free zones if the is according to state law or private property where owners want no one to carry (businesses).

Seems to me that the one common groun in most shootings was they had reports of some mental disability.

Could be. Find some stats on that.If by "most" you mean 12 of 62, then yes. It does have more than its fair share, since it has 12% of the U.S. population and 19% of the mass killings in that map.

Maybe. Find some information on that to prove yourself right. Just like the first part of this. I'm not going to assume that your conjecture is right, just because you say it's a possibility.

I agree that most people who take a gun and go shoot a bunch of people have mental/emotional disorders. I don't think that surprises anyone.

 

[Henry Ford]

Just talked to my local NRA guy in my office. It wasn't a friendly discussion.

Points he brought up

1) Assault Rifles are already banned and have been for decades.

2) The mass murders we have seen, and the rate has not increased just the publicity, have occurred in gun free zones.

3) If somebody has decided to do this, investigations have shown that the planning for these was done months in advance, requiring a back ground check isn't going to do anything.

4) Did agree that a buyer, regardless of it being a private sale, should have a background check and require proof to seller.

1) Wrong on the federal level, correct on some state and/or local levels2) Some have been in gun free zones, but I'd imagine that his response would have been different last week, just after the mall shootings, or several months ago, after the movie theater shootings.

3) I'm not sure what the basis is for this statement, but there are plenty of examples where police have no reason to believe that something was planned months in advance.

4) Sounds like a good idea.

playing his role:1) since 1934.

2) which ones?

3) just proof that a background check won't stop somebody from getting a gun. He said, "if I wanted an uzi I know exactly where in this town to get it and can get it for substantially less than purchasing it legally"

1) What he's calling assault rifles isn't the same thing as what the general public calls assault weapons, it's a technical distinction that he's almost right about. They're not banned, they're extremely tightly regulated to the point that it's nearly a ban. But if he wants to speak technically, he should get the legal stuff right, not just the gun definition stuff. He's talking about automatic and burst-fire rifles, which are under very, very strict control. "Assault weapons" - which include rifle-length guns in many instances, are semi-auto weapons with certain characteristics defined by statute. Okay, if he wants to change the discussion, he can. 2) http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map Look at the map. All the ones that aren't in gun free zones. Like IHOP. Or cafes. Or workplaces.

3) Okay. Then he should say that instead of something not true, like that all of these are planned months in advance.

1) The correct terms need to be used.2) Nothing on that map incicates that those locations were gun free or not.

3) I agree.

1) I agree. Which is why he should stop calling it a "ban" instead of an "incredibly stringent regulation."2) Yup. But unless there's a specific prohibition on guns in IHOP or cafes, at least some of them were not gun free zones. Including, for instance, the mall in Oregon where someone pulled a legally carried gun and was not charged with a crime.

 

[Novice2]

Do Armed Civilians Stop Mass Shooters? Actually, No.

Five cases commonly cited as a rationale for arming Americans don't stand up to scrutiny.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings

I made it past the but they were or were former cops but then stopped at source he talked to about this case said that it was "not clear at all" whether the kid had intended to do any further shooting after he'd left the building.. You here that gun nuts. In the rare case you do find yourself in one of these situation don't bother. The perp has prob decided to stop on his own.

 

[Henry Ford]

Do Armed Civilians Stop Mass Shooters? Actually, No.

Five cases commonly cited as a rationale for arming Americans don't stand up to scrutiny.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings

I made it past the but they were or were former cops but then stopped at source he talked to about this case said that it was "not clear at all" whether the kid had intended to do any further shooting after he'd left the building.. You here that gun nuts. In the rare case you do find yourself in one of these situation don't bother. The perp has prob decided to stop on his own.

Yes, that's what that said.

 

[Apple Jack]

Those of you who appear to think that gun-free zones attract these guys are drawing the wrong conclusion from that information. These places are gun-free for the same reason they are attractive to these guys; the host public gatherings. Many of us in these public gathering places don't want your crazy ### running around us and our family and friends with your guns. Many public gathering areas are gun-free zones so it's no surprise that these happen in gun-free zones. Again, correlation doesn't equal causation.

 

[ATC1]

2) http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map Look at the map. All the ones that aren't in gun free zones. Like IHOP. Or cafes. Or workplaces.

Looked at it again. Some observations.Requirements of at least 4 deaths. Could it be that in cases where there are less deaths a person armed or a citizin took it upon themselves to act?

Most appear to be in California (State law limit of 10 round magazines)

Other places including the businesses, movie theaters, malls may be gun free zones if the is according to state law or private property where owners want no one to carry (businesses).

Seems to me that the one common groun in most shootings was they had reports of some mental disability.

Could be. Find some stats on that.If by "most" you mean 12 of 62, then yes. It does have more than its fair share, since it has 12% of the U.S. population and 19% of the mass killings in that map.

Maybe. Find some information on that to prove yourself right. Just like the first part of this. I'm not going to assume that your conjecture is right, just because you say it's a possibility.

I agree that most people who take a gun and go shoot a bunch of people have mental/emotional disorders. I don't think that surprises anyone.

I did find stats pages back. Gave you at least 4 instances where a person with a gun intervened and it was less then 3 victims, but here we are again.You do realize gun free zones are not just school campuses, right? They include privately owned businesses, some malls and movie theaters (including the one in Aurora), federal buildings, even fort hood.

9 incidents on that map have occurred in California more than any other state on that map. Since 2000 there has been a ban on high capacity mags.

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/sb23indx

Effective January 1, 2000, SB 23 generally prohibits, the manufacture, import, sale, giving or lending of large capacity magazines (defined as any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, but does not include .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding devices).

 

[tom22406]

My reason for asking for a defined list of these types of weapons people want banned it pretty clear.The last "Assault Weapons Ban" was so poorly written you could still own an AR-15(the most talked about weapon of choice)civilian version as long as it didn't fit into 2 of these categories.

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock

Pistol grip

Bayonet mount

Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one

Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip

Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor

Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold

Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more

A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock

Pistol grip

Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds

Detachable magazine.

So basically all this did was force gun makers to not put 2 of those things on any of the 3 classes of weapons and they were legal to own.It was a complete joke and anyone that suggests it's a good idea needs to look long and hard at it before agreeing.All that was is a compromise,not a solution.My hope is the 2 sides get together and write a common sense law if a real solution is what they seek and as I have stated many times I am willing to listen/discuss whatever is wanted.My feeling is that a ban on all guns is a dream and will never happen even if it is the correct solution.If the middle ground is small magazines(which again doesn't solve anything IMO)only being allowed so be it.No problem at all with that and would be willing to comply with it.

As a gun owner I want to see all other gun owners be responsible in doing whatever it takes to make sure the weapon is safe and taken care of properly.I also would love to make every owner take a class or test(much like a driving test)to prove they can use the weapon in a correct,safe manner.

And I also have no problem with an automatic weapons ban at all.

 

[parasaurolophus]

That's a nice theory but I doubt it would work in practice because driving is a privilege and gun ownership is a Right granted to members of the Republic and I don't think the Government should tax a Right. Would you want to be on trial and not be able to invoke your right not to incriminate yourself because you didn't pay your 5th Amendment Tax or because your 5th Amendment Insurance has lapsed?

We tax the exercise of many rights (or Rights).

So you are ok with a poll tax?

Poll taxes are specifically prohibited in the Constitution. Before passage of the 24th Amendment, they were constitutional. The vast majority of people and politicians rejected them because they think it's a good thing to have as many people vote as possible, so they were abolished through the Amendment process.Gun taxes are not specifically prohibited in the Constitution. Therefore they are constitutional. if you'd like to try to convince the vast majority of people that it's a good thing to have as many people own as many guns as possible, feel free to start the movement for an Amendment. Good luck with that.

Not trying to convince anybody of anything. Pointing out some cross thread hypocrisy. How about I rephrase.Are you ok with a freedom of speech registration fee?

You are being a ####### idiot.Firearms are already taxed.You are equating speaking to buying a gun. Unbelievable.

The federal government does not force you to pay a yearly tax for owning a firerarm. I dont think there are any other taxes imposed by the federal government either with the exception of things like machine guns, which I am already against the legality of anyway. So I am not sure why arguing against a yearly national tax on guns(which is what the uber expensive insurance and registration renewal requirements are basically doing) makes me an idiot. It is akin to a registration fee to use your first ammendment rights, which for obvious reasons I would be opposed to. Let me reword your statement."You are equating the first amendment to the second amendment"Sure sounds unreasonable to me. Could you imagine if people tried to compare the 5th amendment to the first amendment? Oh the horror. I mean it is four lower not two!

 

[MaxThreshold]

Now that some of you posters have come up with some fantastic ideas to restrict and/or ban guns for citizens, could you come up with some solutions that will keep the guns out of the hands of...y'know...criminals?

 

[ATC1]

Just talked to my local NRA guy in my office. It wasn't a friendly discussion.

Points he brought up

1) Assault Rifles are already banned and have been for decades.

2) The mass murders we have seen, and the rate has not increased just the publicity, have occurred in gun free zones.

3) If somebody has decided to do this, investigations have shown that the planning for these was done months in advance, requiring a back ground check isn't going to do anything.

4) Did agree that a buyer, regardless of it being a private sale, should have a background check and require proof to seller.

1) Wrong on the federal level, correct on some state and/or local levels2) Some have been in gun free zones, but I'd imagine that his response would have been different last week, just after the mall shootings, or several months ago, after the movie theater shootings.

3) I'm not sure what the basis is for this statement, but there are plenty of examples where police have no reason to believe that something was planned months in advance.

4) Sounds like a good idea.

playing his role:1) since 1934.

2) which ones?

3) just proof that a background check won't stop somebody from getting a gun. He said, "if I wanted an uzi I know exactly where in this town to get it and can get it for substantially less than purchasing it legally"

1) What he's calling assault rifles isn't the same thing as what the general public calls assault weapons, it's a technical distinction that he's almost right about. They're not banned, they're extremely tightly regulated to the point that it's nearly a ban. But if he wants to speak technically, he should get the legal stuff right, not just the gun definition stuff. He's talking about automatic and burst-fire rifles, which are under very, very strict control. "Assault weapons" - which include rifle-length guns in many instances, are semi-auto weapons with certain characteristics defined by statute. Okay, if he wants to change the discussion, he can. 2) http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map Look at the map. All the ones that aren't in gun free zones. Like IHOP. Or cafes. Or workplaces.

3) Okay. Then he should say that instead of something not true, like that all of these are planned months in advance.

1) The correct terms need to be used.2) Nothing on that map incicates that those locations were gun free or not.

3) I agree.

1) I agree. Which is why he should stop calling it a "ban" instead of an "incredibly stringent regulation."2) Yup. But unless there's a specific prohibition on guns in IHOP or cafes, at least some of them were not gun free zones. Including, for instance, the mall in Oregon where someone pulled a legally carried gun and was not charged with a crime.

Now it is "at least some of them"? Some places won't have a person carrying. Only (I say only not to say 1 is not horrific) 2 deaths in the Oregon shooting.

 

[Henry Ford]

2) http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map Look at the map. All the ones that aren't in gun free zones. Like IHOP. Or cafes. Or workplaces.

Looked at it again. Some observations.Requirements of at least 4 deaths. Could it be that in cases where there are less deaths a person armed or a citizin took it upon themselves to act?

Most appear to be in California (State law limit of 10 round magazines)

Other places including the businesses, movie theaters, malls may be gun free zones if the is according to state law or private property where owners want no one to carry (businesses).

Seems to me that the one common groun in most shootings was they had reports of some mental disability.

Could be. Find some stats on that.If by "most" you mean 12 of 62, then yes. It does have more than its fair share, since it has 12% of the U.S. population and 19% of the mass killings in that map.

Maybe. Find some information on that to prove yourself right. Just like the first part of this. I'm not going to assume that your conjecture is right, just because you say it's a possibility.

I agree that most people who take a gun and go shoot a bunch of people have mental/emotional disorders. I don't think that surprises anyone.

I did find stats pages back. Gave you at least 4 instances where a person with a gun intervened and it was less then 3 victims, but here we are again.

Three of those four were non-civilians, as we discussed, and the other was the one that was cited a few posts ago as "the kid stopped shooting and left before the gun owner confronted him." Hard to say any of those were civilians who stopped a shooting.

You do realize gun free zones are not just school campuses, right? They include privately owned businesses, some malls and movie theaters (including the one in Aurora), federal buildings, even fort hood.

Yep. I know.

9 incidents on that map have occurred in California more than any other state on that map. Since 2000 there has been a ban on high capacity mags.

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/sb23indx

Effective January 1, 2000, SB 23 generally prohibits, the manufacture, import, sale, giving or lending of large capacity magazines (defined as any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, but does not include .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding devices).

Uh huh. Doesn't address the gun free issue, which is what we were discussing.

 

[Henry Ford]

Just talked to my local NRA guy in my office. It wasn't a friendly discussion.

Points he brought up

1) Assault Rifles are already banned and have been for decades.

2) The mass murders we have seen, and the rate has not increased just the publicity, have occurred in gun free zones.

3) If somebody has decided to do this, investigations have shown that the planning for these was done months in advance, requiring a back ground check isn't going to do anything.

4) Did agree that a buyer, regardless of it being a private sale, should have a background check and require proof to seller.

1) Wrong on the federal level, correct on some state and/or local levels2) Some have been in gun free zones, but I'd imagine that his response would have been different last week, just after the mall shootings, or several months ago, after the movie theater shootings.

3) I'm not sure what the basis is for this statement, but there are plenty of examples where police have no reason to believe that something was planned months in advance.

4) Sounds like a good idea.

playing his role:1) since 1934.

2) which ones?

3) just proof that a background check won't stop somebody from getting a gun. He said, "if I wanted an uzi I know exactly where in this town to get it and can get it for substantially less than purchasing it legally"

1) What he's calling assault rifles isn't the same thing as what the general public calls assault weapons, it's a technical distinction that he's almost right about. They're not banned, they're extremely tightly regulated to the point that it's nearly a ban. But if he wants to speak technically, he should get the legal stuff right, not just the gun definition stuff. He's talking about automatic and burst-fire rifles, which are under very, very strict control. "Assault weapons" - which include rifle-length guns in many instances, are semi-auto weapons with certain characteristics defined by statute. Okay, if he wants to change the discussion, he can. 2) http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map Look at the map. All the ones that aren't in gun free zones. Like IHOP. Or cafes. Or workplaces.

3) Okay. Then he should say that instead of something not true, like that all of these are planned months in advance.

1) The correct terms need to be used.2) Nothing on that map incicates that those locations were gun free or not.

3) I agree.

1) I agree. Which is why he should stop calling it a "ban" instead of an "incredibly stringent regulation."2) Yup. But unless there's a specific prohibition on guns in IHOP or cafes, at least some of them were not gun free zones. Including, for instance, the mall in Oregon where someone pulled a legally carried gun and was not charged with a crime.

Now it is "at least some of them"? Some places won't have a person carrying. Only (I say only not to say 1 is not horrific) 2 deaths in the Oregon shooting.

It was always at least some of them. I acknowledge that some of them happened in gun free zones. Some of them did not.

 

[Mello]

Now that some of you posters have come up with some fantastic ideas to restrict and/or ban guns for citizens, could you come up with some solutions that will keep the guns out of the hands of...y'know...criminals?

Since we can't know who the criminals are before they commit a crime, they want to treat us all like criminals.

 

[Gr00vus]

Sure sounds unreasonable to me. Could you imagine if people tried to compare the 5th amendment to the first amendment? Oh the horror. I mean it is four lower not two!

Maybe some people think the 2nd amendment has been rendered useless due to the advent of a vast Federal standing military institution and that at this point the consequences of the continuance of the 2nd amendment are not worth it.

 

[TobiasFunke]

If they're homicidal, suicidal, or display threatening behavior, the mental health professional is already supposed to report that for inclusion in the background check database in some states.

And people wonder why many avoid seeking mental help... Here's one of the reasons.

If we have people who are avoiding seeking mental help because they don't want it to potentially interfere with their precious right to own a gun, the problem isn't with the regulations. It's with a society that encourages people to prioritize gun ownership over mental health.

Today it's more about problems with getting a job and yes a job that allows one to live is > mental health.

So argue in favor of keeping that data private when it comes to employment inquiries. Don't argue in favor of keeping it private when it comes to weapons background checks.

No reason I can't do both.

True. But that's beside the point. You said people avoid seeking mental help because they don't want to give up the guns. I said that if this is true, we have much bigger problems than regulation. We have a society that somehow encourages some of its citizens to value gun ownership over mental health. If that's the case maybe the people that glorify gun ownership should shoulder some of the blame. Do you disagree?

I don't agree. I believe the freedom of an individual to do what they choose as long as it does not directly harm others is the most important thing we have (had). I don't think it's very strange at all that if someone agrees with that, that they would be less willing to seek mental help when they know that's it's possible that information will be shared with the government to limit their freedom to own a gun or whatever else the government or anyone else with access chooses to use that information for. This is why this type of information should only be between the individual and the doctor and absolutely no one else without the individual's consent. Anything else provides outside motivation against seeking help.

This is ducking the point as well. We can talk about your overly broad statement about liberty later (I can certainly invent plenty of "no direct harm" scenarios where I think you'd value safety over loss of "freedom" if you want). But for now, let's take for granted that these laws requiring mental health profiling exist. If large numbers of people are avoiding treatment for mental health because they don't want to risk losing their ability to buy and keep guns, don't you think that's a societal problem? I don't own guns so I can't necessarily speak from great experience. But I've fired plenty of them, and I know people who own them, and I have a family whose safety I value. Based on that admittedly limited exposure to the gun-owner mentality, I can't imagine anyone thinking its rational or reasonable for someone to value the ability to own a gun over their mental health. So if people are doing that, I think it's a sign of a serious problem. Do you agree? You don't have to have an opinion on whether disclosure laws are right or wrong to answer, that's a different question.

 

[butcher boy]

The 2nd amendment is completely and totally obsolete.